<p>Correcly pointing to one source of the degeneration of a language is hardly engaging in the “demonizing of the dialects of the marginalized.” Countries with a large influx of North Africans and Central Africans have seen changes in the familiar spoken language as the immigrants brought either a lacking command of French or a version infused with dialects, poor construction, and faulty grammar. Add to the facts that schools gave up on correcting the language, or giving up on the “marginalized” altogether as it has been the case in France and Belgium over the years. </p>
<p>All in all, I do not think that my statements will improve or deteriorate the situation of the marginalized. It is what it is. And, if that would make the bleeding heart will better, you could easily add plenty of other sources such as the importation of regional dialects, especially from rural areas. Didn’t Dumas bring this to life when he introduced d’Artagnan and make him leave Gascony? </p>
<p>In the meantime, the original question was about the differences in the expression. The answer I provided offered one of the reasons it has appeared over time. I happen to think that the degeneration of a language is a … bad thing, and the misplaced use of the overly familiar register a abomination. Evolution is one thing; degradation is quite another. This is what has brought to us nuisances such as “comprised of” and plenty of illogisms. </p>
<p>My point remains the same as far as the use by foreign learners. It is best to adopt the correct use and resist to adopt the familiar constructions. It is far easier to drop down to a more familiar tone than it is to correct learned mistakes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fwiw, the parallel between “I don’t smoke” and “j’n fume pas and then j’fume pas” is rather poor. The english term is correct in both written and spoken versions. The french versions are incorrect grammatically and only part of the lacking familiar language. </p>
<p>Blending words can facilitate the pronunciation, but it does not make the casual elocution better than the formal.</p>
<p>Even 30 years ago when I lived in Tours people dropped or elided the “ne” - and it wasn’t an immigrant thing. I think there’s something to be said for Americans who don’t yet speak fluently to err towards the more correct and formal language, but to be truly fluent you learn this stuff including when to use it.</p>
<p>There is absolutely no need to drop down to the familiar register to show “true” fluency. One can --and should-- show true fluency by sticking to the formal language, as it is neither pass</p>
<p>Oh I see, one needs to show mastery of the bastardized version of a language to be considered fluent.</p>
<p>The beauty is that we do not have to agree. Some of us might prefer a more conservative position. And, fwiw, I am quite certain that “Monsieur Tout-le-Monde” might not necessarily agree with the more conservative positions of l’ Acad</p>
<p>Xiggi, on what do you base your opinion? Are you French? Have you lived in France or another French speaking country for a substantial period of time at some point in your life? Are you a linguist?</p>
<p>Yes, I do believe that. Knowing and using the local slang and even dialect is part of whole picture. I’m not suggesting anyone use casual language talking to their professors, but when you are around others who are speaking casually it’s part of being truly fluent. Otherwise you sound like a fuddy-duddy Victorian. I base this on spending five years in Germany, one year in France and many years of listening to foreign born graduate students speak English. I personally am always impressed when people know which form of a language is appropriate for each situation. I didn’t speak full Bavarian when I lived in Munich, but I certainly used words that were common there instead of their Hochdeutsch equivalents. When we visited northern Germany I used the words I learned in German classes.</p>
<p>I would not go down that road to make a point, Deborah. None of us have to provide personal information to substantiate our positions … according to the TOS. </p>
<p>But suffice it to say that people who know me in “real life” would smile at the intimation that I do not have the background or knowledge to discuss an European language. </p>
<p>Let’s cool this down a bit, or OP and the rest of the French-learning CC community are never going to ask another question. The French themselves debate this question passionately, to the point where early in his presidency, Sarkozy caused quite a ruckus by using the imperfect subjunctive–usually reserved for literary texts–during a speech after tiring of criticisms that his diction wasn’t “presidential” enough.</p>
<p>Xiggi, language is about communication. Put-downs don’t help communication. I’m sorry you did not understand the point of my questions. They were to better understand your perspective.</p>
<p>I’d be thrilled to get to the level of sounding uneducated in speaking French. That would mean that someone who knows the language understood me! </p>
<p>I’ve not been good about sticking to a routine for learning French. Now that my grad school classes are starting again, I think it will be easier to make it a part of my regular schedule.</p>
<p>I understand that part, but my points would not be much different had I shared details on how many years I lived abroad. Would my opinion here be more relevant had I lived ten years in a foreign country or just spend each summer visiting and living in a country where French is spoken. </p>
<p>Perhaps I should have borrowed a page of Cobrat’s playbook, and made references to my extended family of cousins … and cousines! ;)</p>
<p>I really think we are not talking about the same things. I was not talking about regional variance of languages such as your example of Bavarian versus Standard German. I am really talking about the much deeper deterioration of the spoken language, and in social media of the written language also. </p>
<p>For instance, I may very well receive a FB message such as "Oh putain! C’est une cata. J’ai bousill</p>
<p>^LOL. Well I might not go that far. I’m happy to agree to disagree. But I’ll continue to say “J’en sais pas” and even “Chaiz pas” (or however you spell that) from time to time in the right company.</p>
<p>I would not not know how to spell that “Chaiz pas” better than you. Probably why they only say it! For the other one, I think that a “J’en sais rien” might work better or “Je sais pas” … but heck I just spent plenty of time sharing I do not like those expressions. </p>
<p>Ach! I forget to add Servus after Au revoir! :)</p>
<p>Okay, here’s a question for you guys who really know French: When did the word “chouette” become popular?</p>
<p>When I learned French in the 1970s (three years French in high school, one in college), nobody used that word, that I knew of. I never, ever heard it. Of course I guess it is a slang word, but still…</p>
<p>Flash forward many years to when my son took French in high school (2009 grad). His French classroom actually had a poster with the word “chouette” on it! And then a Polish immigrant I met, whose English was a little shaky, tried to demonstrate that he knew a bit of French by exclaiming, “Chouette”! </p>
<p>I’ve tried looking up info about the history of this word online and haven’t come up with much.</p>
<p>I lived in France in the early 80s and “chouette” was commonly used then. I’d never heard the word before despite 8 years of high school & college French. I also saw it spelled out as a subtitle in an American movie that was playing at the local cinema during the time I was there, translating the word “nice” said ironically in the film.</p>
<p>As for dropping the “ne”, I never would have guessed it was an immigrant thing. While I didn’t live in Paris, I also didn’t know very many immigrants. All of the native French speakers in my circle of friends routinely dropped the “ne”.</p>
<p>Another mind-bender is the use of “on” to replace “nous”: *on est all</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure I used “chouette” in 1973. According to my Petit Robert dictionary it’s been used to mean “beau, agreable, elegant, joli” since 1830. It also means owl - that meaning has been around since 1175.</p>
<p>Whenever it was (?) that the word became very popular and started to be known about by many non-natives (it’s even in Urban Dictionary!)…apparently it is less au courant now, at least in France itself. I found some French language threads on Word Reference dot com (another great resource!) in which people were saying that the word “chouette” is rather dated…a bit like saying “neat” or “groovy” in English rather than “cool.”</p>
I’m happy to agree to disagree. But I’ll continue to say “J’en sais pas” and even “Chaiz pas” (or however you spell that) from time to time in the right company.</p>